Father John A. Hardon, S.J. Archives

Papacy

An Analysis of Anglican Concepts of the Papal Magisterium from the First Through the Tenth Lambeth Conference

CHAPTER V

PAPACY AND EPISCOPACY: A RAPPROCHEMENT? (1948-1968)

by Burns K. Seeley

Views of papal authority paralleling those held by Trevor
Jalland were also present during the years 1948-1968. Therefore, we will see
in this chapter a continuation of the trend in Anglican scholarship in which
the papacy was described in terms more closely resembling the doctrine of the
papacy held by Roman Catholicism.

We will also see a remarkable contrast between the attitudes
of the Ninth (1958) and Tenth (1968) Lambeth Conferences towards the papacy.
Unlike the former, the 1968 Conference, influenced by the Vatican II doctrine
of episcopal collegiality, proposed a re-examination of the question of papal
authority by all concerned with the unity of the Body of Christ.

1. Cyril Garbett

On the eve of the definition of the bodily Assumption of
the Blessed Virgin Mary in 1950, an address on the nature of the Churchs magisterium
was delivered by Cyril Garbett (1875-1955), the Archbishop of York. [1]
Educated at Oxford, Garbett was ordained to the priesthood in 1901, becoming
successively Bishop of Southwark (1919), Bishop of Winchester (1942), and Archbishop
of York (1942). He was also the author of the following books: Secularism
and Christian Unity (1929) , A Call to Christians (1935) , and
The Claims of the Church of England (1947).

In his address, the archbishop, referring to the doctrine
of papal infallibility, stated that there was nothing in Scripture or in the
writings of the Fathers or in the practice of the early Church to indicate that
even the holiest and wisest of men was infallible in matters of faith. [2]

Actually, Garbett was objecting to the concept of human infallibility
rather than to papal infallibility in particular. Yet he himself implicitly
believed in the concept when he next spoke of the binding authority of doctrine
received by the general consent of the faithful.

The early Church knew of no infallible authority except Our
Lord Himself; to formulate the doctrines which were essential to the faith it
appealed to the Scriptures, to the witness of the different Churches, to the
action of the great councils, and to the consent of the faithful to their decisions.
The Orthodox Churches of today know of no infallible authority which has the
right to impose new dogmas. They do not believe that new dogmas can be made,
though they hold that if a genuine Ecumenical Council could be called it would
be capable of giving a new definition to an existing dogma, but even then it
would not be binding until it was accepted by the general consent of the faithful.
[3]

The basic problem between the Church of Rome and Anglicans
holding the above views was not whether human beings under certain conditions
and circumstances possessed doctrinal infallibility. Rather it was which human
or humans possessed this gift under certain conditions and circumstances. Moreover,
the efficacy of doctrinal infallibility was not really held by either group
to be derived from human sanctity and wisdom, but from Christs promise to guide
the Church into all truth by the assistance of the Holy Spirit.

Garbett again insisted that the Church had no infallible
human organ, but only the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit.

How, then, is the Church to distinguish between truth and
error if it has no infallible organ which can do so ? Our Church believes most
firmly that the Holy Spirit will guide it into all truth; he will speak through
its scholars and theologians, and will help them to discover how far the new
views agree with the Scriptures, with the teaching of the Fathers, and with
reason; he will guide the sacred synods of the Church if they have to pronounce
upon those views; and he will lead the whole body of the faithful, both clergy
and laity, to form a right opinion upon them. Our Church thus follows the methods
adopted by the Church of the early centuries ( ). [4]

Here also it is clear that at least implicitly the archbishop
believed in the infallibility of the consensus of the faithful, which in this
instance was thought to be exercised by the Anglican faithful independently
of the rest of Christianity. For some reason, however, Garbett failed to see
that the real difference between the position stated above and that held by
the Church of Rome was the means by which the Holy Spirit ultimately guided
the Church to perceive doctrinal truth.

Apparently Garbett thought that Roman Catholicism believed
in the ontological infallibility of the pope, whereas he did not. Nor did he
believe in the personal infallibility of the faithful. Instead, he held that
they were guided or assisted by the Holy Spirit into recognizing the truth.
But we have noted earlier in the thesis that Roman Catholicism also did not
believe in the personal infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. Instead there
was the belief that under certain conditions and circumstances he was infallibly
assisted by the Holy Spirit into perceiving the truth of some aspect of faith
or morals.

2. Report on Catholicity

In 1952, a report prepared by Anglican scholars on the catholicity
of the Church was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Geoffrey Fisher. [5] Among the contributors was A.M. Ramseu who was destined to succeed
Fisher as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1961.

It was recognized that the papacy rendered an invaluable
service to the Church in the area of doctrine during the second through the
sixth centuries. Protestant reformers were accused of ignoring the fact that
the papacy was potentially too valuable an institution to be sacrificed for
the sins of the Borgia and Medici Popes. [6]

Some central institution such as the papacy was held to be
more than just a convenience for the Church and it was pointed out that before
the Reformation the papacy was the central institution of the Western Church,
and that prior to the twelfth century, it provided a great doctrinal service
to the entire Church.

Yet signs have multiplied in recent years, that whenever
it can ( ) give a deliberate lead to all Christendom, outside as well as inside
its own allegiance, on a matter of vital Christian interest, the Papacy can
still command the attention and to a large extent secure the following of all
Christians, and that it is the only Christian institution which can do so.
It is at the head of a full half of Christendom, and that half, moreover, which
shows no signs of diminished vitality and coherence ( ). Above all, it has
never wavered its adherence to the central Christian truths of the Trinity,
the Incarnation, and the Redemption: for its mighty witness to these all orthodox
Christians of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries have had cause to be deeply
grateful. [7]

In spite of this remarkable attestation to the fidelity and
leadership of the See of Peter, the scholars rejected the Church of Romes theological
explanation of these facts. Nevertheless, they maintained that the papacy should
not be lightly regarded. With its deep roots in Church history and its worthiness
of European veneration and gratitude, to hold it in small esteem was to blind
oneself to the profounder realities of what is meant by the universal Church.
[8]

Since a central institution for the Christian Church was
believed to be more than just a convenience, it must have been thought to be
a necessity which meant that it was a part of the divine constitution of the
Church. And since the papacy was alone thought to be able to fulfill this role
in the present, as a part of the divine constitution of the Church, it must
always have been the Churchs central institution. It is significant also that
no other institution, such as the universal episcopate, was suggested by the
scholars as a possible alternative to the papacy.

3. The Ninth Lambeth Conference (1958)

The Ninth Lambeth Conference convened in 1958 under the presidency
of Geoffrey Fisher who also chaired the previous conference ten years earlier.
As was true of earlier conferences, the Ninth Conference commented on Christian
marriage. The bishops said that procreation was not the sole purpose of Matrimony,
since also implicit in the marital bond was the relationship of love between
the spouses which had its sacramental expression in sexual union. [9]
Both procreation and the relationship of love were held to be the chief purposes
of Christian marriage, illumining one another and also forming the focal points
of a well formed family life.

The prelates concluded from this observation that methods
of family planning which were agreed upon by the spouses in Christian conscience
were licit.

Because these two great purposes of Christian marriage illumine
each other and form the focal points of constructive home life, we believe that
family planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife
in Christian conscience, and secure from the corruptions of sensuality and selfishness,
is a right and important factor in Christian family life. [10]

It is certainly true that two of the chief purposes of Matrimony
are procreation and the provision of a divinely ordained framework within which
mutual love, having its sacramental expression in sexual union, could be fostered
between the spouses. But it does necessarily follow from a recognition of either
of these purposes that mutually acceptable family planning techniques formed
in Christian conscience are a right factor in family life. The mere recognition
of the second purpose, for example, tells us nothing about the licitness of
either family planning itself or its techniques.

The bishops in fact arbitrarily maintained that since sexual
union was a possible expression of a couples mutual love, it could always be
employed for that purpose even though the reproductive end of both the sexual
act and Matrimony was ignored. Actually the prelates implicit approval of
family planning and their explicit approval of mutually acceptable techniques
of family planning were based upon their understanding of the purpose or purposes
of the sex act rather than upon the second mentioned purpose of Matrimony.

Since the conference concluded that the sacramental expression
of a married couples love for one another could legitimately be separated from
its procreative purpose, the door was left open for contraceptive practices.
This was implied in the conference encyclical.

There are many lands today where population is increasing
so fast that the survival of the young and old is threatened. ( ) In such
countries population control has become a necessity. Abortion and infanticide
are to be condemned, but methods of control, medically endorsed and morally
acceptable, may help the people of these lands so to plan family life that children
may be born without a likelihood of starvation. [11]

It will be recalled that contraception was first endorsed
by the 1930 Conference.

With respect to ecumenism, the conference encyclical stressed
the necessity of healing the breach existing between the Anglican Communion
and the Church of Rome. A conference resolution welcomed recently granted permission
by Rome for Roman Catholics to hold theological discussions and to cooperate
with other Christians in defending fundamental Christian principles and the
natural law. The resolution expressed the hope that such permission would be
widely used so that Christian understanding and fellowship might be fostered.
It was also hoped that Anglicans would avail themselves of this new opportunity
to promote charitable relations between the two Communions. [12]

A committee report dealing with Roman Catholicism noted that
the new permission granted Roman Catholics was accompanied by a statement renewing
the earlier insistence that there could be no genuine Christian unity without
submission to the papacy. But the report also maintained that, in spite of
this position, the official Roman Catholic recognition of the ecumenical movement
along with the accompanying permission for Roman Catholic participation in it
were welcome gains in the cause of Church unity. The committee suggested that
contact with Roman Catholics be made whenever possible, even on personal and
unofficial levels. Efforts were also to be made to promote mutual scholarship
in fields such as patristics.

The resolution encouraging theological talks between the
two traditions was written in the same spirit as a resolution of the 1930 Conference.
The latter expressed gratitude for the Malines Conversations as a means of removing
error and misunderstanding. These represented the collective mind of the Anglican
episcopate in a way that unadopted committee reports did not. The resolutions
were evidence of a growing desire within Anglicanism for reunion with Roman
Catholicism based upon doctrinal truth.

This desire was undoubtedly further fostered by the resolutions
themselves, and by recent Anglican scholarship which reflected a greater appreciation
of the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. It is also safe to assume that
Jallands views in the matter were generally known and respected by not a few
Anglican bishops, since they were presented in the well-known Bampton Lectures
at Oxford in 1942, as well as being published in book form.

The endorsement by the 1958 Conference of contraceptive practices
paralleled a similar endorsement by the 1930 Conference. These contrasted with
the teaching of the early undivided Catholic Church which was the doctrinal
norm of both Anglo-Catholicism and Roman Catholicism.

4. Eric Lionel Mascall

During the same year as the 1958 Conference, a book was published
written by Eric Lionel Mascall which dealt with some of the theological difficulties
contained in the ecumenical movement. Among those included was the question
of the papacy. [13]

Born in 1905, Mascall has been professor of historical theology
at Kings College, University of London, since 1962 and dean of the theology
faculty since 1968. Also in 1968, he was a lecturer at The Catholic University
in the United States.

Mascall was educated at Cambridge and the theological college
in Fly. Ordained in 1932, he was lecturer in theology at Christ Church from
1946-1962. Among his other publications are Corpus Christi (1953),
Via Media (1956), and Theology and History (1962).

In his book on ecumenism, Mascall observed that too often
Anglicans either completely ignored the See of Rome and the papacy or dismissed
them with a few airy and superficial generalizations. [14]
The author held that English Church history alone demanded their greater appreciation.
It was noted, for example, that it was due to the endeavors of Pope Gregory
the Great (590-604) that the Roman monk Augustine (d. 604) became the first
Archbishop of Canterbury and evangelized the people of Kent. Moreover, it was
recalled that before the English Reformation the Ecclesia Anglicana was
in communion with the Roman pontiff for over a thousand years.

Mascall suggested that since the historic episcopate was
a legitimate development from the apostolic college, the papacy might also be
a legitimate development from the primacy granted to Peter by Christ. [15]

Peter was said to be the rock upon which Jesus said he would
build his Church. This was held to be the plain meaning of Matthew 16:17-19.
[16] The author was also impressed by the unanimity voiced
in the early Church to the effect that the Churchs primacy was located in the
See of Peter.

He was impressed too by the fact that during this period
there was a readiness to connect the Roman primacy with the Matthean text.

Mascall asserted that Anglicans who believed that the primacy
given Peter ceased upon his death differed little from Protestants who held
that the apostolate ceased upon the death of the last Apostle.

The suggestion that the primacy became extinct with the death
of Peter seems to me to exemplify that puzzling readiness to see the New Testament
Church as different in essential structure from the Church of all succeeding
ages which we have seen to be exemplified also in the common Protestant thesis
that the Apostolate became extinct with the death of the last of the Twelve
who were called by Jesus. [17]

In other words, Mascall was stating that if both the apostolate
and the primacy connected with Peter belonged to the Churchs constitution,
then Christ must have made provision for the continuance of both after the death
of the Apostles.

The author had no difficulty in believing that Peters divinely
bestowed primacy was one of authority over both the Apostles and the Church.
Moreover, it was held that this primacy was transferred to Peters successors,
the Bishops of Rome. [18] Yet, it was also maintained
that the nature of papal primacy was not precisely that taught by the Church
of Rome.

Before examining Mascalls concept of papal primacy, we would
do well to note what he thought was the Roman Catholic position.

The primacy involves the absolute supremacy in governing
and teaching the Church which is commonly claimed by the popes and expounded
by Roman Catholic theologians at the present day. [19]

It can be seen that this reflected the same understanding
of Romes doctrine as that expressed by Edward Denny and N.P. Williams. However,
the description of the papacy as an absolute supremacy did not in fact conform
with Roman Catholic terminology. Too often the term absolute supremacy conveyed
the idea of dictatorial powers whereby the pope might arbitrarily bind his followers
to doctrines having no basis in either Scripture or apostolic tradition. [20]
Its use did not readily lend itself to the actual Roman Catholic teaching that
the pope was only the chief teacher and guardian of the faith, bound to teach
solely in conformance to Scripture and apostolic tradition.

It will be recalled that Vatican I taught that the bishops
in communion with the Roman pontiff shared in the responsibility of teaching
and guiding the Church. This was true because they were the successors of the
Apostles. They were not regarded as the popes vicars. Thus we see that although
the pope held the primacy, or even the supremacy, he was not, as the term absolute
supremacy suggested, the absolute ruler of the Church. [21]

Mascall claimed that what he believed was the modern Roman
Catholic position on the papacy was actually the result of an unwarranted development
of ancient doctrine.

It is only by treating words with violence that it can be
held that the position claimed and occupied by the Pope in the Roman Church
today is identical in essence with the position accorded to him in the early
Church. [22]

This, of course, was a correct conclusion, if in fact the
modern Church of Rome taught the absolute supremacy of the papacy.

The proper view of papal primacy as taught by the early Church
was held to be a primacy which expressed the general mind of the Church, that
is, the consensus of the universal historic episcopate.

If it was accepted that the Pope, as inheriting the primacy
of Peter, was simply the divinely appointed Head of the episcopal college, the
divinely constituted organ and mouthpiece of the universal apostolic episcopate,
we could, I think, admit that there was a genuine continuity with the position
of the Papacy in the primitive and undivided Church ( ). [23]

As with Jalland, this concept of papal primacy was something
other than Gallicanism. It was a primacy which could not perfectly function
in todays divided Christianity. Only when the universal episcopate was reunited
could the papacy find its proper place. [24]

Our study has shown, however, that from at least as early
as Pope Victor in the second century through the Chalcedonian Council in the
fifth century, the popes were commonly held to have a primacy essentially identical
to that claimed by the modern papacy. In matters of doctrine, for example,
the popes as the Churchs ultimate arbiters were subject not to the consensus
of the universal episcopate, but to Scripture and to apostolic tradition. But
if disagreement or uncertainty arose among them, they were in the last analysis
subject to the doctrinal judgment of the papacy.

We have seen that Mascall accepted the Roman Catholic doctrine
that the Bishop of Rome had a divinely authorized primacy of authority over
the Church inherited from Peter. He argued, however, that the alleged claim
of the modern papacy for an absolute supremacy was other than the primacy recognized
by the early Church. The latter was thought to mean that the papacy was only
the organ and mouthpiece of the universal episcopate. This, in effect, was
not more than a primacy of honor. [25]

5. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965).

Although it was not altogether absent during the First Vatican
Council, the concept of episcopal authority was not stressed. During the Second
Vatican Council (1962-1965), however, this was not the case. Here the nature
of the episcopate and its relationship to the papacy were dealt with in detail.
This teaching was also destined to have a profound effect upon Anglican scholarship
and upon the Tenth Lambeth Conference (1968).

In its development of the doctrine of the episcopate, Vatican
II faced a twofold task. In the first place it was thought necessary in the
light of Scripture and ancient tradition to demonstrate that as successors of
the Apostles bishops possessed a genuine authority of their own. Too often
in the past, as we have observed, it was believed that Rome taught that the
Churchs bishops were mere vicars of the Bishop of Rome. In the second place,
in keeping with the Vatican I teaching on papal primacy, it was thought necessary
to determine the proper relationship existing between the bishops and the successor
of Peter.

The council declared that the bishops, the divinely authorized
successors of the Apostles, together with the pope, the divinely authorized
successor of Peter, fed and governed the Church. [26] Upon their consecration, bishops were said to receive
the fullness of the power of the high priesthood. [27]
In addition to the office of sanctifying, episcopal consecration was also held
to confer the offices of teaching and governing.

The reception of the fullness of the power of Christs high
priesthood, the council maintained, enabled a bishop to validly administer all
of the Churchs sacraments which took their effect ex opere operato. Yet
he was not to do so without papal approval.

It was stressed that the teaching and governing offices of
a bishop could only be properly exercised when the prelate was in hierarchical
communion with the episcopal college and with its head, the Bishop of Rome.
Consecration itself was said to give a bishop the virtual capacity to exercise
these offices, but not their actual realization. This latter could not be without
the requisite canonical or juridical determination by the hierarchical authority
under the pope. [28]

The council noted that the New Testament depicted Peter and
the other Apostles constituting one apostolic college. In a similar manner
the pope and the bishops were said to be joined together in one episcopal college.
This similarity was not meant to imply that there was a transmission of the
extraordinary power of the Apostles to their successors, nor that there was
an equality between the head and the members of the episcopal college. It was
intended only to demonstrate the proportionality existing between the relationship
of Peter to the other Apostles and that of the pope to the bishops. [29]

The council stated that in ancient times duly established
bishops throughout the world were in communion with one another and with the
papacy in a bond of charity, unity and peace. At times, in order to settle
common issues of importance, councils (including ecumenical councils) were held
and the bishops opinions were prudently considered.

The ancient practice of several bishops taking part in the
consecration of a bishop-elect was cited as an example of episcopal collegiality.
Here also the new bishop was said to have gained hierarchical communion with
the head and members of the college.

With respect to papal primacy, Vatican II upheld the doctrines
of Vatican I. It was asserted that the episcopal college had no authority apart
from its head, the Roman pontiff, who had the full primacy over both the Churchs
pastors and the faithful. As the Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church,
the pope was held to enjoy over the Church supreme, full and universal power
which he was always free to exercise. [30]

The episcopal college in union with its head was also said
to share in the supreme and full power over the Catholic Church. [31]
But this could be exercised only with the consent of the pope, since he was
the successor of Peter who alone was the rock and the sole bearer of the keys.
The bearing of the keys was not equated with the power of binding and loosing
which Christ gave to all the Apostles. Instead it signified that Peter and
his successors were alone the chief authorities in the Church militant. Here
we see echoed Jallands understanding of the power of the keys with respect
to Petrine authority.

The bishops who faithfully acknowledge the primacy and pre-eminence
of their head were held to exercise in a due manner their own authority for
the benefit of the faithful committed to them and for the good of the whole
Church.

It was declared that the episcopal college exercised the
supreme power in the universal Church in a solemn manner when meeting in an
ecumenical council. Still a council was never considered ecumenical unless
it received papal confirmation, or was at least accepted by the papacy as ecumenical.
It was also held that the same supreme power could be exercised by the episcopal
college dispersed throughout the world in union with its head, or when the head
freely accepted or approved the united action of the scattered bishops.

As the successor of Peter, the pope was declared the abiding
and visible principle and foundation of unity of the whole Church, that is,
of both the bishops and the faithful. Similarly, individual bishops were described
as the visible principle and foundation of unity in their own particular Churches.
In fraternal union with their head, the college of bishops was held to represent
the entire Catholic Church.

The council noted that individual members of the episcopal
college did not exercise universal jurisdiction over the Church. Yet each by
divine command was required to be solicitous for the welfare of the whole Church,
that is, to promote and to safeguard the faith and discipline of the universal
Church. Examples of this solicitude were stated to be when each bishop governed
his own particular Church well, and when in cooperation with his fellow bishops
and with the pope each helped in the task of world evangelization.

Bishops were said to be authentic teachers endowed with the
authority of Christ to teach all nations. In particular they were to teach
the faith, and the ways that it was to be put into practice, to those committed
to their charge. Since in matters of faith and of morals the episcopal college
was held to speak in Christs name, the faithful were obliged to accept their
doctrine and to adhere to it with a religious assent. This assent was said
to be owed especially to the authentic magisterium of the pope even when he
did not speak ex cathedra.

It was stated that individual bishops did not possess the
prerogative of infallibility. Nevertheless, they were said to proclaim Church
doctrine infallibly when they maintained the bond of unity with one another
and with their head, and when they genuinely taught in the areas of faith or
morals and concurred on a position to be held definitively. [32] This was seen to be true particularly in ecumenical
councils where the bishops were the teachers and judges for the entire Church
and whose definitions of doctrine were binding upon the faithful.

Here we see clearly that the Church of Rome was not as oblivious
as many Anglican scholars thought to the genuine role assigned to the episcopate
in settling matters of doctrine for the whole Church.

Vatican II declared that the Churchs infallibility granted
by Christ extended as far as the limits of the deposit of Revelation. The pope
was said to possess this infallibility in virtue of his office as chief teacher
and shepherd of the Church, and with it he confirmed his brethren in their faith.
This infallibility was said to also dwell in the college of bishops when they
exercised their supreme magisterium with the successor of Peter. Repeating
the teaching of Vatican I, the council asserted that papal definitions of faith
or morals were irreformable in themselves. Consequently they did not depend
upon the consent of the Church. [33]

The council held that the bishops, as successors of the Apostles,
governed their respective Churches as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, even
though the exercise of their power was ultimately subjected to papal jurisdiction.
Its proper exercise was said to include the right and the responsibility before
Christ to make laws for the faithful committed to their care and to pass judgment
upon them. Individual bishops were also to regulate matters concerning the
order of worship and the apostolate.

It was asserted that the bishops pastoral office, that is,
the habitual and daily care of the faithful in their charge, was entrusted to
them completely. It was explicitly stated that since bishops, as successors
of the Apostles, enjoyed an authority proper to them, they were not to be regarded
as vicars of the Roman pontiff. [34] The council
maintained that the bishops power was not destroyed by the universal and supreme
power of the papacy. Rather it was strengthened, affirmed and vindicated by
the latter.

Many Anglicans, especially Anglo-Catholics, held views on
the episcopate similar to the doctrine of Vatican II. These would readily endorse
the concept that the members of the historic episcopate were the divinely authorized
successors of the Apostles. They would also agree that besides the responsibility
bishops had for their own Churches they were also to be solicitous for the welfare
of the whole Church. In addition, these Anglicans would accept the doctrine
that bishops upon consecration received the plenitude of the power of Christs
high priesthood, accompanied by the gift of supernatural grace enabling them
to be the Churchs chief teachers and pastors.

A larger number of Anglicans would allow that the episcopal
offices of teaching and governing could not in the Anglican Communion be exercised
without proper juridical or canonical determination and hierarchical communion
with the college of Anglican bishops. But with the exception of a very few,
Anglicans would not concede that hierarchical communion with the papacy was
necessary in order to exercise these offices properly.

We have noted that Vatican II did not portray the papacy
as an authority opposed to the episcopal college. At the same time the council
upheld the doctrines taught by Vatican I. Papal primacy was not conceived as
a hindering force to the full exercise of episcopal power. Rather it was thought
to be a stabilizing power for the benefit of the bishops, both as individuals
and as a college. It was especially noted that the doctrine of papal infallibility
guaranteed doctrinal stability to the college of bishops enabling them to fulfill
effectively their responsibility as teachers of Catholic doctrine.

Vatican II clearly dispelled many misconceptions harbored
by non-Roman Catholics about the nature of papal authority. The pope was not
held as an absolute monarch with the bishops as his suffragans. Both the pope
and the bishops were held to have genuine authority and power entrusted to them
by Christ so that they might administer the sacraments and teach and govern
the Church. Within the college of bishops, the Roman pontiff as head and his
episcopal brethren as members, were seen to be complementary and cooperating
forces for the welfare of the whole Church.

6. Frederick C. Grant

During Vatican II, Frederick C. Grant, an official Anglican
observer at the council, wrote Rome and Reunion, a book dealing with
the place of Roman Catholicism in the reunion of Christianity.
35 An American scholar and educator, Grant was born in 1891 and received
his theological education at Nashotah House (Wisconsin) and Western Theological
Seminary, Chicago. Priested in 1913, he served as president of Seabury-Western
Theological Seminary, Chicago, from 1927-1938. In 1938, he became president
of Union Theological Seminary in New York City, remaining in that post until
1959. He was at the Vatican Council as an official observer from 1962-1963.
In addition to Rome and Reunion, he also wrote Roman Hellenism and
the New Testament (1961), Ancient Roman Religions (1957), and Hellenistic
Religions (1953).

In Rome and Reunion, Grant stated that Pope Leo I
was the first to become the Bishop of Bishops in the West. He was also said
to be the first to set forth clearly the principle of papal primacy, appealing,
with the exegesis of his own day, to the traditional (Petrine) texts. [36]

It was noted that Leo assumed that these passages referred
to Peters successors, as well as to Peter. In so doing, the pope was said
to have ignored the fact that Paul, rather than Peter, claimed the responsibility
for the care of all the Churches. [37] Leos
theory was said to be basically political and practical in its origin and presuppositions,
(and) opened a way that lead ( ) to 1870 and the decree of Papal Infallibility,
and beyond. [38]

Prior to Leos time, the author believed that Cyprians doctrine
of a collegial episcopate exercising oligarchial rule over the Church. [39]
was dominant in the West.

It was held that one of the chief reasons for the rise in
the West of papal supremacy was the fact that Leo filled the political vacuum
created when the emperor and his court moved to Constantinople. The fact that
the Bishop of Rome was only patriarch in the West also was thought to have contributed
to the increasing authority of the papacy in that area of the world.

Grant maintained that the Patriarch of Constantinople was
the acknowledged head of the Church in the East. However, he was not believed
to have enjoyed as much prominence as the Bishop of Rome due to his proximity
to the power and influence of the imperial court, and because of the presence
in the Orient of a great number of theological disputes.

Another key factor contributing to the newer doctrine of
papal primacy was thought to be Leos leadership in the fight for orthodoxy
as, for example, at Chalcedon where his voice was heeded.

It was noted too that as early as the second century the
Church of Rome adopted the correct theological positions which it continued
to do through all the theological crises of the early Church. [40]
This also was held to have contributed to the papal claims of Leo and his successors.

Although the Church of Rome even prior to Leos time played
a decisive role in the development of the Churchs doctrine, the author asserted
that none of the first seven ecumenical councils acknowledged a papal supremacy.

In a clarification of his belief the Leo was the first to
set forth clearly the principles of papal primacy, [41]
Grant said that the popes predecessors in the fourth and fifth centuries prepared
the way for his doctrine. Nevertheless, Grant added, it remained for the theological
and historical circumstances during Leos reign for the doctrine to be taught
for the first time. [42]

The author found no support for Leos claims among any of
the Fathers. Augustine, for instance, was said to have given no hint in his
references to the Roman pontiff that the latter was considered the pre-eminent
figure in the religious life of Christians, let alone the decisive figure in
dogmatic pronouncements. [43]

It was observed that Augustine wrote that if the bishops
at Rome who had recently decided the validity of a bishops consecration were
not good judges, their decision could be reversed by a plenary council of the
whole Church. [44] It was concluded, therefore,
that Augustine taught that a plenary council, not the papacy, was the Churchs
supreme court in doctrinal matters. [45]

Grant maintained that the Petrine texts in the New Testament
did not support the Roman Catholic claims for papal primacy. Nor did he believe
that there were any conclusive evidence that Peter ever saw Rome, even though
I Clement and Ignatius Epistle to the Romans suggested the possibility
that he died there. [46]

Even Irenaeus claim that Peter, together with Paul, consecrated
Linus as the first Bishop of Rome was not thought to be completely reliable,
since the early lists of bishops were fragmentary, incomplete, and questionable.
[47]

Grant also asserted that the Roman sees location in the
imperial capital accounted for its right to adjudicate differences within the
Church, even those arising within the East. It was pointed out that since civil
differences were ultimately settled at Rome, it was logical that ecclesiastical
cases should be also. [48]

It was also thought that the Church of Romes strategic location
in the empire accounted for the reason that apostolic tradition was centered
there and why it enjoyed an extraordinarily close relationship with other Churches.
Grant held that it was not until later centuries that the prestige of the Roman
see was interpreted as a specially conferred divine privilege. [49]

Above all, the author believed that it was the outstanding
leadership of Leo and his successors in difficult times which in fact made them
the Churchs primates.

The pragmatic demonstration of papal superiority or primacy,
coupled with sound judgment and heroic determination, did more to establish
the papal claims than dozens of theological arguments. ( ) The use and
interpretation of Petrine texts found in the New Testament was only a rationalization
( ). [50]

This pragmatic primacy was said to be the result of a natural
course of development in Church history rather than a development of the Churchs
constitution. [51]

In the foregoing presentation it has been seen that Grant
found no basis in Scripture, in the Fathers, or in the early ecumenical councils
to the effect that the popes enjoyed a primacy over the Church by divine right.
The de facto primacy exercised by the popes beginning with Leo was thought
to be principally the result of being in the right location under a fortuitous
set of circumstances. This primacy, however, was said to have clashed with
the earlier belief in the primacy of the episcopal college held by men like
Cyprian and Augustine.

Although a recent writer about papal authority, Grant represented
the older more conservative school in Anglicanism which failed to detect in
the early Church any evidence of a primacy of the papacy by divine right. Consequently,
Grants views represented an implicit denial of the more developed Anglican
outlook of scholars like Jalland and Mascall which regarded the popes as the
inheritors of Peters divinely appointed primacy. Nevertheless, in the last
analysis, we saw that even these men regarded the papacy as subject to the authority
of the universal episcopate.

Grant believed that Cyprian taught that the collegial episcopate
exercised the primacy in the Church, rather than the papacy. It was this position
which was said to be dominant in the West prior to the reign of Pope Leo. Yet,
we have noticed more than once that at least before his differences with Pope
Stephen over heretical Baptism, Cyprian clearly believed in the primacy of the
See of Peter upon which the Church was founded. If afterwards he actually changed
his mind in favor of the primacy of the episcopal college, it was not an all-encompassing
college. Rather it was one definitely limited to bishops in communion with
the Bishop of Rome, as opposed to one for example which included Novationist
bishops.

It will be recalled also that Jalland maintained that belief
in primacy by divine right was held by the Church in North Africa from at least
the time of Tertullian. [52]

Certain factors should be taken into consideration regarding
Grants reference to the statement attributed to Augustine that a plenary council
of the whole Church was superior to the bishops of Rome. The specific case
to which Augustine referred was that of Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage (died
c.345) whom the Donatists claimed was not properly consecrated because of the
weak character of his consecrator. In order to settle the question, the emperor
requested Pope Miltiades (d.314), three Gallican bishops, and fifteen bishops
from Italy to hear the case at Rome.

This in effect was a regional council of bishops. It was
not the pope acting alone, judging the case of Caecilian in an ex cathedra
manner as the chief teacher and pastor of all Christians. Augustine too
specifically spoke of the collective judgment of the regional bishops gathered
at Rome. Therefore, he was not asserting that a general council was superior
to the doctrinal judgment of the papacy. He was of course correct in maintaining
that if the bishops at Rome were poor judges there still remained a general
council which could decide the matter.

Note also that it was not held that a general council was
the final court in the Church. We have seen earlier that Augustine definitely
believed in the magisterial primacy of the papacy. [53]

It is significant that Vatican II reflected Augustines doctrine
of the Churchs magisterium. The saint and the council held that the magisterium
was focused on both the episcopal college and on the Roman pontiff, the latter
being the head of the college and the Churchs chief arbiter. In this relationship
the bishops were not thought of as vicars of the pope. Rather as successors
of the Apostles they had a genuine doctrinal role to play as teachers and arbiters
of the faith.

With respect to Pope Leo, we discovered earlier in the thesis
that he was not the first to teach the doctrine of papal primacy. At least
as early as the third century, both Tertullian and Firmilian revealed that the
papacy of their day taught it. [54] The fact
that Clement in the first century and Victor in the second actually exercised
a primacy suggests also that the doctrine may have been explicitly taught right
from the time of the first Bishop of Rome.

A close examination of the early undivided Church before
Leos reign reveals, as Grant said, a collegial episcopate exercising oligarchical
rule over the Church. [55] However, the same period also bears witness to the
complementary primatial rule of the papacy.

7. Bernard C. Pawley

After Vatican II, a book of essays by several Anglican observers
to the council was published. [56] The introductory essay was written by the editor,
Bernard C. Pawley, who was also the first representative in Rome of the Archbishops
of Canterbury and York. Born in 1911, and an Oxford graduate, he was ordained
to the priesthood in 1936, serving for over twenty years in the parish ministry.
From 1960-1965, Pawley was the representative of the Archbishops of Canterbury
and York at the Vatican Secretariat for Unity. In 1966, he was appointed the
vice-chairman of the Archbishops Commission for Roman Catholic Relations.
In addition to his essay, Pawley also wrote several articles and two books dealing
with Roman Catholicism. The latter are entitled Looking at the Vatican Council
(1962) and Anglican-Roman Relations (1964).

In his essay, Pawley commended the authors of the councils
Constitution on the Church[57] for dispelling misconceptions about the nature of
papal primacy. He was especially pleased to learn that papal infallibility
was not held to be the prerogative of the Roman pontiff as a private person,
but only when he spoke officially and under certain carefully defined circumstances.
Nevertheless, Pawley said that this doctrine, as well as others peculiar to
the Church of Rome, could not be made acceptable to the rest of Christianity
even with further clarifications. [58]

Instead, the author urged a thorough re-examination, by both
Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars, of teaching about the papacy.

In the case of the treatment of the papacy in the Constitution
on the Church the point has emerged even more clearly that the difficulties
attaching to this doctrine cannot be resolved without profound and mutual re-examination
of the Scriptures in the light of modern knowledge, and in the context of patristic
understanding of them. The knowledge that there are many Roman Catholic scholars
who are not only willing but anxious to begin such an objective re-examination
of fundamental beliefs is progress indeed. [59]

Actually, a mutual re-examination might yield the result
that the doctrine contained in the Constitution on the Church concurred
with both Scripture and patristic writings. Consequently, Pawley was premature
in ruling out this possibility. As a matter of fact, we have noticed in our
study a steady movement among Anglican scholars towards the Roman Catholic position
on the papacy, some of whom completely accepted it.

We have seen that the councils doctrine on episcopal collegiality
did not make the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy any more credible to
Pawley. The same conclusion can be said to apply as well to Grant.

8. Eugene Fairweather

Another contributor to Pawleys book was Eugene Fairweather
of the Anglican Church of Canada. Educated at McGill University, Trinity College,
Toronto, and Union Theological Seminary, New York, Fairweather was ordained
priest in 1944. Since 1949, he has been professor of theology at Trinity College.
He is the author of Episcopacy and Reunion (1953), The Voice of the
Church: The Ecumenical Council (1962), and The Oxford Movement (1964).

Fairweather wrote in his essay, The Church, that he detected
in Vatican II not only a development of the doctrine of the episcopate found
in Vatican I, but also a basic change. It was pointed out that Vatican I depicted
bishops as only the chief shepherds of individual Churches, while the pope was
described as the sole sovereign of the universal Church. [60] The author said that Vatican II also stressed the
supreme jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff over the Church, but it added that
the episcopal college in union with its head possessed a universal mission and
authority. [61]

Fairweather thought that Vatican II did not successfully
synthesize the twin authorities of the papacy and the episcopate. He held that
the episcopate was integrated with the primacy of the papacy. But at the same
time he thought there was a failure to integrate completely the papal primacy
with the episcopate. [62] He maintained that
the episcopal college was not free to act apart from its head, while the latter
was free to act apart from the college. Consequently, the author believed that
Peter was held by Vatican II to be something more than the head of the apostolic
college, and that the pope was held to be something more than the head of the
episcopal college. Fairweather concluded that if the above was thought to reflect
the essential nature of papal primacy, then it seemed unlikely that a robust
and consistent doctrine of collegiality can ever be digested by Roman Catholic
ecclesiology. [63]

As can be seen, the author favored a view of Church authority
which was essentially episcopal. As far as he could tell, there was no convincing
evidence of even a papal primacy of honor over the Church derived from the Petrine
office. [64]

Inasmuch as Vatican II was thought to have changed the earlier
position on episcopal authority, it was believed that in the future the Church
of Rome might further alter its doctrine; especially, since Vatican II did not
preclude such a possibility.

The signs of the times point to a rethinking of the Roman
primacy in the light of the principle of collegiality, rather than to the reverse.
As time goes on, the evolving theology and practice of collegial episcopacy
may well alter the context of the papal primacy so effectively and drastically
that the primatial authority itself can no longer be conceived or exercised
as it has been in recent centuries. At any rate, the way to such a development
has not been blocked by Vatican II, whatever imperfections we may have detected
in the Councils synthesis of papacy and the episcopate. [65]

Thus, it was hoped that eventually the Church of Rome would
adopt a view of ecclesiology resembling that held by Anglo-Catholics.

Actually, Vatican II did not basically alter the doctrine
of the episcopate contained in Vatican I. Although it certainly developed it.
In the first Council, bishops were said to teach and govern their own particular
flocks. Adding to this, the second Council stressed that collectively, in union
with their head, they shared in the supreme and full power over the entire Catholic
Church as, for example, in an ecumenical council.[66] But it was also held that this power could only
be exercised with the consent of the pope, since he alone was the successor
of Peter, the bearer of the keys and the rock upon which the Church was built.
[67]

This doctrine contained no logical inconsistency. To state
that the bishops, subject to the primatial power of the pope, shared in the
supreme and full power over the whole Church was not the same thing as saying
that all had the same rank. This, however, Fairweather concluded when he wrote
that Vatican II integrated the episcopate with the primacy of the papacy, and
at the same time failed to integrate completely papal primacy with the episcopate.

In an army, for example, at least some generals might share
with the commander-in-chief the responsibility of governing all the troops.
Yet this need not mean that the commander-in-chief did not have the last word,
or the primacy of authority or jurisdiction.

As we have seen, Fairweather believed in the primacy of the
episcopal college. Yet this view countered the patristic and conciliar traditions
of the early undivided Catholic Church as reflected, for instance, in the teaching
of Cyprian, Innocent, Augustine, and the Council of Chalcedon. On the other
hand, this should not be taken as evidence that there was no complementary doctrine
in the early Church to the effect that the episcopal college shared with the
pope in the ruling and feeding of the Church. The proceedings of the Councils
of Ephesus and Chalcedon clearly attested to such a belief by both bishops and
popes.

9. The Tenth Lambeth Conference (1968)

The president of the Tenth Lambeth Conference (1968) was
Arthur Michael Ramsey. Born in 1904, he was educated at Cambridge and ordained
priest in 1928. He was professor of divinity at Durham University (1940-1950)
and Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge (1950-1952). He became Archbishop
of York in 1956, being transferred to the See of Canterbury in 1961.

One of Ramseys better known books is The Gospel and the
Catholic Church.[68] In it he held that
in the early Church the papacy developed into a primacy of honor with the pope
becoming the first among equals. Therefore he was open to the possibility of
the Roman pontiff resuming this role when Christianity was reunited. In effect,
such a primacy would depend upon and express the organic authority of the Body
of Christ with its bishops, presbyters and laity. [69]
This concept was similar to the views of Jalland and Mascall. Only here it
appears that the pope was also the mouthpiece of the presbyters and laity.

During the 1968 Conference, a short message replaced the
customary encyclical letter. Touching upon Church unity, it stressed the need
of Christian renewal in order to achieve a reunited Church which was one, holy,
catholic and apostolic.

In the resolutions, the conference fathers took note of the
recently issued papal encyclical Humanae Vitae. They expressed their
appreciation for the popes concern for the institution of marriage and for
those engaged in it. But they did not agree with him that all methods of conception
control, except either total abstinence from sexual intercourse or its limitation
to infertile periods, were contrary to the will of God. The bishops then endorsed
the 1958 Conferences approval of contraception.

The position taken by these two conferences, and by that
of 1930, represented a reversal of that assumed in 1908 and 1920. It also countered
the consentient witness of the early undivided Catholic Church.

While it may not have been true in 1930, the bishops stand
in 1968 reflected the doctrine of contemporary Anglicanism, thus calling into
question the Anglo-Catholic belief that the doctrine of the Anglican Communion
was that of the early undivided Catholic Church.

As a rule, Anglo-Catholic scholars restricted this commitment
to early Church doctrine to what were usually described as matters of faith.
But almost invariably no distinction was made between faith and morals. What
is really more important as far as the question of contraception is concerned,
as well as Anglicanisms stand on marital indissolubility, is that the sacrament
of Matrimony has been involved, and therefore a matter of faith in the strictest
sense of the word.

Another resolution of the 1968 Conference recommended that
under certain circumstances Anglican communicants be allowed to participate
fully in the Eucharist of Churches with whom they were not in communion.

( ) under the general direction of the bishop, to meet special
pastoral need, ( ) (Anglican) communicants (are) ( ) free to attend the Eucharist
in other Churches holding the apostolic faith as contained in the Scriptures
and summarized in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds, and as conscience dictates
to receive the sacrament, when they know they are welcome to do so. [70]

The reference to Churches holding to the faith as summarized
in the Apostles and Nicene Creeds would apply to a great many not possessing
the historic episcopate. It is significant that the absence of the historic
episcopate was not considered a hindering factor, whereas disparity of faith
was. Here was reflected the belief expressed in the Lambeth committee report
of 1948 that the historic episcopate was not essential to the Churchs constitution.
In the 1968 resolution, however, the direct implication was that clergy with
or without ordination by members of the historic episcopate had equal sacramental
powers with respect to the Eucharist.

The same outlook towards the historic episcopate and non-episcopal
ordination was found in a resolution about the Church of South India. It was
recommended that the Churches of the Anglican Communion seek full communion
with the Church of South India even though some of the South Indian clergy were
not episcopally ordained. [71] This contrasted
with the 1930 Conference which stated that the full communion was impossible
as long as non-episcopally ordained clergy remained in the Church of South India.
[72] Also in 1948 the Lambeth bishops wanted
to know how long the Church of South India intended to have such clergy, [73] therefore revealing the same attitude as expressed
in 1930.

A 1968 resolution concerning the Roman Catholic Church welcomed
the proposals contained in a committee report on the subject. The report
recommended that a permanent joint commission of Roman Catholics and Anglicans
be established [74] and that one of its functions
be the consideration of theological difficulties to be overcome before intercommunion
could be achieved.

This commission or its subcommissions should consider the
question of intercommunion in the context of a true sharing in faith and the
mutual recognition of ministry, and should also consider in the light of the
new biblical scholarship the orders of both Churches and the theology of ministry
which forms part of the theology of the Church and can only be considered as
such. The hope for the future lies in a fresh and broader approach to the understanding
of apostolic succession and of the priestly office. On this line we look for
a new joint appraisal of Church orders. [75]

Here we see declared that not only must the two traditions
overcome doctrinal differences but that it was also necessary that one anothers
ministry be recognized. The latter undoubtedly was a reference to Apostolicae
Curae, the encyclical of Leo XIII declaring Anglican orders to be invalid.

It is noteworthy that the solution to the difficulty was
to be sought in the results of modern biblical scholarship rather than by the
criteria employed by the encyclical. The crucial question from the Roman Catholic
point of view was whether, in the sixteenth century, the reformed Church of
England intended to retain a Catholic ministry in all its essentials. Leo concluded
that it did not since it no longer taught that its ministry was endowed with
the power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of Christ in
the sacrifice of the Mass. Therefore Anglican orders were held to be invalid.
[76]

Over the years, however, some Anglican bishops have had non-Anglican
bishops with unquestioned orders as their co-consecrators. This raises the
possibility that on this basis Rome might recognize as valid the orders of many,
if not all, Anglican clergy. But instead of this approach, the Lambeth Conference
recommended that of modern biblical scholarship.

To limit the criterion of valid orders to the latter has
a definite drawback since Scripture does not provide developed insights into
the nature of the Christian ministry, any more than it does into the nature
of the Holy Trinity. The theology of the Trinity was not developed until post-biblical
times. This was true also of the Churchs ministry. To revert to the Bible
exclusively to determine valid orders would be similar to having Jews and Christians
resorting exclusively to the Old Testament to resolve the problem of the Godhead.
Thus, all of the insights of the New Testament, the Fathers, and the councils
would be ignored.

The committee report dealing with Roman Catholicism cautioned
that talks between Anglicans and Roman Catholics should be conducted in the
context of conversations already being conducted between Anglicans and other
Christians.

In them all we propose to hold fast the principles of Catholic
truth as we have been given to understand them, though we realize that, in renewed
obedience to the Holy Spirit, we must at all times be willing to go forward
adventurously. [77]

It is not clear what this means, but the committee may have
allowed the possibility that Anglicans did not always correctly understand Catholic
truth. If so, it indicated a willingness to go to greater lengths to understand
and, if possible, accept doctrinal positions other than those of Anglicanism
(including those on the papacy) so that Catholic truth might actually be obtained.

The committee noted that Anglicans and Roman Catholics shared
a common belief in the Holy Trinity which was taught in Scripture, the Apostles
and Nicene Creeds, and in the Fathers of the early Church. The committee also
recalled that the two Churches had one Baptism and that in many instances shared
in a common heritage. At the same time, it recognized that substantial differences
existed as well, many originating since the sixteenth century. Among these
were doctrines concerning the unity and indefectibility of the Church, the Churchs
magisterium, Petrine primacy, infallibility, Mariological definitions, and some
moral problems. [78]

A conference resolution enforced the concept of collegiality,
recommending that it should be a guiding principle in the interrelationship
of Anglican provinces and in Anglican relations with other Churches in full
communion with Anglicanism.

The resolution called attention in particular to the section
of a committee report in which the principle of collegiality was underlined.
It is present below.

The principle underlying collegiality is that the
apostolic calling, responsibility, and authority are an inheritance given to
the whole body or college of bishops. Every individual bishop has therefore
a responsibility both as a member of this college and as chief pastor in his
diocese . In the latter capacity he exercises direct oversight over the people
committed to his charge. In the former he shares with his brother bishops throughout
the world a concern for the well-being of the whole Church. [79]

This bears a striking resemblance to the doctrine of collegiality
proclaimed by Vatican II. [80] Although of course references to hierarchical communion
with the Roman pontiff are conspicuously absent. But the report continued by
declaring that Within the college of bishops it is evident that there must
be a president, [81] noting that at present,
in Anglicanism, this position, a primacy of honor, was held by the Archbishop
of Canterbury. Such a primacy was said to involve in a particular way the custody
of all the Churches which was shared by all the bishops. Significantly, however,
it was added that in wider context involving other Churches the primacy of the
new episcopal college would assume a new character which would have to be worked
out mutually. [82] This, at least, left open
the possibility of adopting a papal primacy of jurisdiction.

The report noted that emphasis placed on collegiality by
Vatican II greatly enhanced the status of Roman Catholic bishops, while at the
same time leaving unaltered the Vatican I doctrine of papal infallibility and
the papal primacy of jurisdiction. The report committee said that they were
unable to accept this teaching as it was commonly understood. But it did recognize
the Papacy as a historic reality whose developing role requires deep reflection
and joint study by all concerned for the unity of the whole Body of Christ. [83]

The realization that Anglicans may have misunderstood the
Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy was the first statement of its kind to
appear within the context of a Lambeth Conference. This also appeared to concur
with the conferences endorsement of the proposal for Anglicans to held fast
to the principles of Catholic truth as they had been given to understand them,
unless the Holy Spirit directed to go forward adventurously. [84]

The 1968 or Tenth Lambeth Conference was the first to be
held after the Second Vatican Council. The response of Lambeth to the council
was in general very positive. This was seen especially by the conferences
modified adoption of the principle of episcopal collegiality. Although the
prelates belief in the validity of non-episcopal ordinations revealed the Anglicanism
as a whole, unlike Roman Catholicism, did not regard the episcopal college as
essential to the Churchs constitution.

During the 1958 Conference, Anglicans in general were urged
to seek opportunities for resolving theological differences between themselves
and Roman Catholics. The 1968 Conference carried this a step further by proposing
the establishment of a permanent joint commission for this purpose.

The conferences position on contraception was a repetition
of that found in the Conference of 1920 and 1958. This, as we have seen, was
a reversal of earlier conference stands as well as the teaching of the early
undivided Church.

During the course of the present chapter, the scholarship
examined revealed no further development of Anglican concepts of the papal magisterium.
Eric Mascalls views were essentially those of Trevor Jalland which were examined
in the last chapter. Both men accepted the Roman Catholic premise that the
pope, as Peters successor, was the divinely authorized primate and chief teacher
of the Church. Unlike Roman Catholicism, however, they believed that in the
last analysis the authority of the pope was dependent upon that of the college
of bishops.

Grant, Pawley and Fairweather, all of whom were Vatican II
observers, evidenced disappointment at the councils retention of the Vatican
I doctrine of papal primacy. As far as Fairweather was concerned, the Vatican
II teaching on episcopal collegiality, although a welcome development, was somewhat
inconsistent with the retention of the earlier stand on papal primacy. It was
thought that a further development was needed whereby the papacy would be completely
absorbed into the episcopal college on an essentially equal basis.

Pawley urged that a re-examination of the papal question
be accomplished by both Roman Catholic and non-Roman Catholic scholars. This
same recommendation, as we saw, was made by the Tenth Lambeth Conference suggesting
the possibility of a cause and effect relationship between the scholar and the
conference.

Grant was not adverse to a return to his understanding of
early Churchs doctrine of papal primacy. This meant that he would be happy
to accept the pope as primate of the Church as long as his primacy was no more
than one of honor, that is, one merited by exemplary leadership in ecclesiastical
affairs.

The willingness of the Tenth Lambeth Conference to have Anglicans
enter into ecumenical dialogue with Roman Catholics on the highest level was
obviously a giant step forward in resolving the division existing between them
for over four centuries. However, in the area of Church authority, more than
the question of the papacy needed resolving. There were also fundamental differences
about the nature of the historic episcopate existing between Roman Catholics
and many Anglicans.

It is true that in contemplating unity with Protestant Churches,
Anglicans have always insisted upon the acceptance of the historic episcopate,
largely due to Anglo-Catholic influence. But by the same token they have not
insisted upon the acceptance of any one view of episcopacy. Consequently, there
has been freedom to regard it as only an office, which means that bishops are
held to be essentially no different than other types of ordained clergy.

The adoption of this attitude by members of both sides became
apparent in the plan of unity between the Church of England and the English
Methodist Church. Approved by the 1968 Lambeth Conference, there was no provisions
for Methodist clergy to receive Anglican orders. [85]
We see therefore that ecumenical dialogue between Anglicans and Roman Catholics
must deal with the question of episcopacy as well as with the papacy, including
their interrelationship.

While Lambeth Conferences and Anglicanism as a whole were
developing conciliatory approaches towards Protestantism, Anglo-Catholic scholarship
in the field of ecclesiology was developing in a direction which more closely
resembled Roman Catholicism. Here, the primacy of the episcopal college was
upheld, but the pope was increasingly seen to be the divinely authorized head
of the college and its chief teacher which meant that he was its representative
figure and spokesman.

There were also within the Anglo-Catholic school men such
as Jones and Scott who were well in advance of this development inasmuch as
they completely accepted the Church of Romes position on the papacy.

Ironically, in an ecumenical age, the various Anglican points
of view regarding Church authority presents at least the possibility of the
fragmentation of the Anglican Communion. It remains to be seen whether it will
be able to retain its cohesiveness in the course of its attempts to unite with
non-episcopal, episcopal and papal-episcopal Churches.

Footnotes Chapter V

Cyril Garbett, Authority in Doctrine, London, S.P.C.,., 1950, 15p.

Ibid., p. 11.

Ibid., p. 12.

Ibid., p. 13.

Catholicity: A Study in the Conflict of Christian Tradition in the West, Westminster, Dacre Press, 1952, 56 p.

Ibid., p. 36.

Ibid., p. 40.

Ibid., p. 36.

The Lambeth Conference, 1958, London, S.P.C.K., 1958, I, 22.

Ibid.

Ibid., I, 23.

The permission referred to was contained in the Congregation of the Holy Offices Instruction to Local Ordinaries on the Oecumenical Movement, December 1949.

E.L. Mascall, The Recovery of Unity, London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1958, xiii-242 p. An article by Mascall dealing specificially with the Lambeth Conference involvement in the ecumenical movement was published the following year. Cf. E.L. Mascall, Lambeth and Unity, Church Quarterly Review, Vol. 160, No. 1, 1959, p. 158-172.

Mascall, The Recovery of Unity, p. 194.

Ibid., p. 195.

Ibid., p. 197.

Ibid., p. 200.

> Ibid., p. 201.

Ibid., p. 197.

Cf. p. 230 where the modern Roman see is portrayed as exercising a draconic dogmatic and disciplinary dictatorship.

Cf. Collectio Lacensis VII, cols. 484, 486.

Mascall, op. cit., p. 202f.

Ibid., p. 208.

Ibid., p. 196.

For views of the papacy and the episcopate similar to those of Mascall, consult the following article by Derrick W. Allen and A. MacDonald Allchin, Primacy and Collegiality: An Anglican View, Journal of Ecumenical Studies, Vol. 21, 1965, p. 63-80.

Ibid., p. 77. For a similar viewpoint, see Arthur A. Vogels article The Second Vatican Council on the Nature of the Church and Ecumenism, Anglican Theological Review, Vol. 49, No. 3, 1967, p. 243-262.

The recommendation for the establishment of a permanent joint commission reflected a similar recommendation made the previous year at Malta by the Anglican-Roman Catholic Joint Prepatory Commission. Cf. The Commission Report, Herder Correspondence, Vol. 5, No. 12, December 1968, p. 374.